Suffice to say, even if the facts stated herein above are cent per cent
correct, the question remains whether this Commission has the jurisdiction and
authority to question the decision taken by HPCL. My emphatic answer is ‘No’.
Whether or not, the appellant herein was more qualified than Smt. Monica Sharma
for proprietary rights in the gas agency in question had to be decided by HPCL
which it did. The decision taken by the HPCL cannot be questioned before this
Commission. The relief lies elsewhere. Given the fact that Smt. Monica Sharma is
100% proprietor of the said gas agency, information sought by the appellant can
legitimately be said to be third party information, justifying application of section
11(1). The fact that the appellant is the husband of Smt. Monica Sharma does not
alter this legal position as the husband and wife are two separate legal entities in
law. I, therefore, hold that CPIO was right in invoking Sec.11(1) of the RTI Act.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.308, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
File No.CIC/LS/A/2013/001021
(Maj. Puneet Dadeech Vs. H.P.C.L)
16 August, 2013
This matter was initially heard on 2.7.13. The proceedings of the day are
extracted below:
File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001021
Appellant : Maj. Puneet Dadeech
Respondent : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited, New Delhi
Date of hearing : 2.7.2013
Date of decision : 2.7.2013
Heard today dated 2.7.2013. Appellant present alongwith his father Wg. Cdr. (Retd.) H. C.
Dadeech. HPCL is represented by Shri Vilas Mani Chandra, Area Sales Manager. The parties are
heard and the records perused.
2. Vide RTI application 5.10.2011, the appellant had sought the following information:
“Mrs. Shanta Jain, W/o Late Col Narendra Nath Jain was the original allotee of Narindra Gas Agency
having its registered office at shop No. 15 Godavari Shopping complex, Sector 37, NOIDA, Gautam
Budh Nagar, UP.
Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act 2005. I am enclosing a Postal Order No.
Date for Rs. 50/ which includes Rs. 10/ as the RTI fee and balance as cost of providing copies
of the documents requested in the application.
a) Did Mrs. Shanta Jain made any application requesting HPCL to induct Puneet Dadeech as
her partner in her above named LPG agency. If yes, what was the official response to her request?
b) Did HPCL declined the request o Mrs. Jain as mentioned at A) above? If yes what were the
grounds on which the request was declined.
c) Did Mrs. Shanta Jain made any request to HPCL to induct Wg Cdr (Retd) H. C. Dadech an Ex
defense persona las partner in her LPG agency. Was the request of Mrs. Jain rejected? If yes kindly
provide the reasons for the rejection of the request.d) Did HPCL instruct Mrs. Shanta Jain to close account No. 14301 in respect of Narinder Gas
Agency NOIDA held with Citizens Co Operative Bank, Sector 39 NOIDA. If yes what were the reasons
of instructing Mrs. Jain to close the said account and open new account with IOB, Sector 37 NOIDA.
e) When was the first application moved by Mrs. Shanta Jain to induct Mrs. Monica Sharma as
partner in her LPG Business?
f) Did HPCL instruct Mrs. Shanta Jain to provide personal details of Monica Sharma and her
relationship with Monica Sharma, including educational qualifications, work experience and family
tree of Monica Sharma etc. What were the reply of Mrs. Shanta Jain to thee queries from HPCL?
g) Did HPCL receive any complaint alleging that Narinder Gas Agency has been sold?
h) Did HPCL institute any departmental investigation about this aggregation? If yes what were
the conclusion drawn by the investigation agency? A copy of the investigation report prepared /
submitted by the investigation team may kindly be provided.
i) Did HPCL carry out any check / investigation / verification about Monica Sharma before
inducting her as partner in Narinder Gas Agency? If yes, a copy of the check / investigation /
verification carried may kindly be provided.”
3. The CPIO’s response is not available in the Commission’s file. However, during the hearing,
Shri Chandra produces a copy of the CPIO’s letter dated 12.11.2012 wherein the appellant was
informed that the requisite information could not be supplied to him as the concerned parties had not
consented for the same in terms of the provisions of section 11 of the RTI Act. On appeal, the AA, in
order dated 22.2.2013, had upheld the decision of the CPIO.
4. Hence, the present appeal.
5. During the hearing, the appellant forcefully contends that the procedure of section 11 of the
RTI Act should not have been followed in this case as the requested information does not concern
third party. Besides, disclosure of requested information would not compromise the safety and
security of the persons concerned. Nor would it compromise the confidenality of information.
6. On the other hand, Shri Chandra submits that the appellant, indeed, has sought third party
information and the procedure prescribed u/s 11 has been correctly followed..
7. The appellant has raised a legal issue. He is advised to file written representation in 08 working
days time with a copy thereof to the Senior Regional Manager, HPCL, Regional Office, whereupon the
latter would sent his comments, if any, in 05 working days to the Commission. The Commission will
decide the matter on the representations received from the parties. There will be no further hearing in
the matter.
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
2. As desired in Para 7 of the aforesaid proceedings, the appellant has filed a
written representation dated 8.7.2013 which is taken on record. The main legal
issue raised by the appellant in the hearing held under reference is that the CPIO
was not right in following the procedure prescribed u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act as he was not seeking third party information. It is pertinent to mention that in his
representation, the appellant has questioned the induction of Smt. Monica
Sharma, his wife, as 49% partner in the Narinder Gas Agency by HPCL on 22.9.04
and finally declaring her to be 100% owner of the said gas agency in August 2009.
Paras (f) to (k) of his representation are extracted below:
“(f) Mrs.Shanta jain recommended the name of Mrs. Monica
Sharma (my wife), to be inducted as partner as she (Mrs Shanta Jain) is
suffering from cancer and is unable to devote time to the running of the
agency due to old age. She gave various details about Mrs.Monica Sharma
including the name of her husband, residential address along with a notorised
affidavit etc in her application to HPCL.
(g) Prolongs and protracted correspondence took place between Mrs.
Shanta Jain and HPCL for almost 4 years in which various clarifications were
sought, by HPCL from Mrs. Shanta Jain including whether Mr. P.D.Sharma, who
was shown as husband of Mrs.Monica Sharma is the same person as Mr.Puneet
Dadeech. HPCL also wrote to Mrs.Shanta Jain to provide the
educational qualifications and family tree of Mrs.Monica Sharma.
(h) Suddenly and inexplabily after a gap of over 4 years Mrs.Monica
Sharma was inducted 49% partner in the Gas Agency on 22 Sept. 2004 and
finally made 100% owner of the Agency in Aug. 2009.
(i) Sir, I am an MBA from US and had worked as Executive
Assistant to former Chief Election Commissioner, Shri T.N.Seshan.
At that time of making application for induction I was working as Assistant
Manager in Sahara Airlines. It is a fact that I am more qualified both in terms
of education qualification and work experience than Ms. Monica Sharma who
did her education through correspondence from UP with no work experience
whatsoever.
(j) Inspite of the fact that Mrs. Monica Sharma was my wife and
less qualified than me she was inducted as partner in the agency in the most
arbitratory, illegal and unusual manner by HPCL based on wrong and false
information/documents.(k) HPCL does not have unfettered and absolute authority to induct
any one they wish to induct as partner in any LPG agency. There are proper
directions on this matter issued by Govt. of India which they are required to
follow.”
3. Suffice to say, even if the facts stated herein above are cent per cent
correct, the question remains whether this Commission has the jurisdiction and
authority to question the decision taken by HPCL. My emphatic answer is ‘No’.
Whether or not, the appellant herein was more qualified than Smt. Monica Sharma
for proprietary rights in the gas agency in question had to be decided by HPCL
which it did. The decision taken by the HPCL cannot be questioned before this
Commission. The relief lies elsewhere. Given the fact that Smt. Monica Sharma is
100% proprietor of the said gas agency, information sought by the appellant can
legitimately be said to be third party information, justifying application of section
11(1). The fact that the appellant is the husband of Smt. Monica Sharma does not
alter this legal position as the husband and wife are two separate legal entities in
law. I, therefore, hold that CPIO was right in invoking Sec.11(1) of the RTI Act.
4. Now the question arises whether the requested information should be
disclosed to the appellant. I would answer this question in the negative as the third
party had not agreed to the impugned disclosure. Even otherwise, I find it rather
strange that the appellant, being the husband, is seeking information regarding the
gas agency of his wife, particularly when his father failed in his endeavours in this
regard, as held by this Commission in order dated 26.12.12
(F.No.CIC/LS/A/2012/002287). Looked at from any angle, the appeal must fail.
Dismissed.
Order pronounced today dated 16th August 2013.Sd/
(M.L.Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Print Page
correct, the question remains whether this Commission has the jurisdiction and
authority to question the decision taken by HPCL. My emphatic answer is ‘No’.
Whether or not, the appellant herein was more qualified than Smt. Monica Sharma
for proprietary rights in the gas agency in question had to be decided by HPCL
which it did. The decision taken by the HPCL cannot be questioned before this
Commission. The relief lies elsewhere. Given the fact that Smt. Monica Sharma is
100% proprietor of the said gas agency, information sought by the appellant can
legitimately be said to be third party information, justifying application of section
11(1). The fact that the appellant is the husband of Smt. Monica Sharma does not
alter this legal position as the husband and wife are two separate legal entities in
law. I, therefore, hold that CPIO was right in invoking Sec.11(1) of the RTI Act.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.308, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
File No.CIC/LS/A/2013/001021
(Maj. Puneet Dadeech Vs. H.P.C.L)
16 August, 2013
This matter was initially heard on 2.7.13. The proceedings of the day are
extracted below:
File No. CIC/LS/A/2013/001021
Appellant : Maj. Puneet Dadeech
Respondent : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited, New Delhi
Date of hearing : 2.7.2013
Date of decision : 2.7.2013
Heard today dated 2.7.2013. Appellant present alongwith his father Wg. Cdr. (Retd.) H. C.
Dadeech. HPCL is represented by Shri Vilas Mani Chandra, Area Sales Manager. The parties are
heard and the records perused.
2. Vide RTI application 5.10.2011, the appellant had sought the following information:
“Mrs. Shanta Jain, W/o Late Col Narendra Nath Jain was the original allotee of Narindra Gas Agency
having its registered office at shop No. 15 Godavari Shopping complex, Sector 37, NOIDA, Gautam
Budh Nagar, UP.
Kindly provide me the following information under RTI Act 2005. I am enclosing a Postal Order No.
Date for Rs. 50/ which includes Rs. 10/ as the RTI fee and balance as cost of providing copies
of the documents requested in the application.
a) Did Mrs. Shanta Jain made any application requesting HPCL to induct Puneet Dadeech as
her partner in her above named LPG agency. If yes, what was the official response to her request?
b) Did HPCL declined the request o Mrs. Jain as mentioned at A) above? If yes what were the
grounds on which the request was declined.
c) Did Mrs. Shanta Jain made any request to HPCL to induct Wg Cdr (Retd) H. C. Dadech an Ex
defense persona las partner in her LPG agency. Was the request of Mrs. Jain rejected? If yes kindly
provide the reasons for the rejection of the request.d) Did HPCL instruct Mrs. Shanta Jain to close account No. 14301 in respect of Narinder Gas
Agency NOIDA held with Citizens Co Operative Bank, Sector 39 NOIDA. If yes what were the reasons
of instructing Mrs. Jain to close the said account and open new account with IOB, Sector 37 NOIDA.
e) When was the first application moved by Mrs. Shanta Jain to induct Mrs. Monica Sharma as
partner in her LPG Business?
f) Did HPCL instruct Mrs. Shanta Jain to provide personal details of Monica Sharma and her
relationship with Monica Sharma, including educational qualifications, work experience and family
tree of Monica Sharma etc. What were the reply of Mrs. Shanta Jain to thee queries from HPCL?
g) Did HPCL receive any complaint alleging that Narinder Gas Agency has been sold?
h) Did HPCL institute any departmental investigation about this aggregation? If yes what were
the conclusion drawn by the investigation agency? A copy of the investigation report prepared /
submitted by the investigation team may kindly be provided.
i) Did HPCL carry out any check / investigation / verification about Monica Sharma before
inducting her as partner in Narinder Gas Agency? If yes, a copy of the check / investigation /
verification carried may kindly be provided.”
3. The CPIO’s response is not available in the Commission’s file. However, during the hearing,
Shri Chandra produces a copy of the CPIO’s letter dated 12.11.2012 wherein the appellant was
informed that the requisite information could not be supplied to him as the concerned parties had not
consented for the same in terms of the provisions of section 11 of the RTI Act. On appeal, the AA, in
order dated 22.2.2013, had upheld the decision of the CPIO.
4. Hence, the present appeal.
5. During the hearing, the appellant forcefully contends that the procedure of section 11 of the
RTI Act should not have been followed in this case as the requested information does not concern
third party. Besides, disclosure of requested information would not compromise the safety and
security of the persons concerned. Nor would it compromise the confidenality of information.
6. On the other hand, Shri Chandra submits that the appellant, indeed, has sought third party
information and the procedure prescribed u/s 11 has been correctly followed..
7. The appellant has raised a legal issue. He is advised to file written representation in 08 working
days time with a copy thereof to the Senior Regional Manager, HPCL, Regional Office, whereupon the
latter would sent his comments, if any, in 05 working days to the Commission. The Commission will
decide the matter on the representations received from the parties. There will be no further hearing in
the matter.
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
2. As desired in Para 7 of the aforesaid proceedings, the appellant has filed a
written representation dated 8.7.2013 which is taken on record. The main legal
issue raised by the appellant in the hearing held under reference is that the CPIO
was not right in following the procedure prescribed u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act as he was not seeking third party information. It is pertinent to mention that in his
representation, the appellant has questioned the induction of Smt. Monica
Sharma, his wife, as 49% partner in the Narinder Gas Agency by HPCL on 22.9.04
and finally declaring her to be 100% owner of the said gas agency in August 2009.
Paras (f) to (k) of his representation are extracted below:
“(f) Mrs.Shanta jain recommended the name of Mrs. Monica
Sharma (my wife), to be inducted as partner as she (Mrs Shanta Jain) is
suffering from cancer and is unable to devote time to the running of the
agency due to old age. She gave various details about Mrs.Monica Sharma
including the name of her husband, residential address along with a notorised
affidavit etc in her application to HPCL.
(g) Prolongs and protracted correspondence took place between Mrs.
Shanta Jain and HPCL for almost 4 years in which various clarifications were
sought, by HPCL from Mrs. Shanta Jain including whether Mr. P.D.Sharma, who
was shown as husband of Mrs.Monica Sharma is the same person as Mr.Puneet
Dadeech. HPCL also wrote to Mrs.Shanta Jain to provide the
educational qualifications and family tree of Mrs.Monica Sharma.
(h) Suddenly and inexplabily after a gap of over 4 years Mrs.Monica
Sharma was inducted 49% partner in the Gas Agency on 22 Sept. 2004 and
finally made 100% owner of the Agency in Aug. 2009.
(i) Sir, I am an MBA from US and had worked as Executive
Assistant to former Chief Election Commissioner, Shri T.N.Seshan.
At that time of making application for induction I was working as Assistant
Manager in Sahara Airlines. It is a fact that I am more qualified both in terms
of education qualification and work experience than Ms. Monica Sharma who
did her education through correspondence from UP with no work experience
whatsoever.
(j) Inspite of the fact that Mrs. Monica Sharma was my wife and
less qualified than me she was inducted as partner in the agency in the most
arbitratory, illegal and unusual manner by HPCL based on wrong and false
information/documents.(k) HPCL does not have unfettered and absolute authority to induct
any one they wish to induct as partner in any LPG agency. There are proper
directions on this matter issued by Govt. of India which they are required to
follow.”
3. Suffice to say, even if the facts stated herein above are cent per cent
correct, the question remains whether this Commission has the jurisdiction and
authority to question the decision taken by HPCL. My emphatic answer is ‘No’.
Whether or not, the appellant herein was more qualified than Smt. Monica Sharma
for proprietary rights in the gas agency in question had to be decided by HPCL
which it did. The decision taken by the HPCL cannot be questioned before this
Commission. The relief lies elsewhere. Given the fact that Smt. Monica Sharma is
100% proprietor of the said gas agency, information sought by the appellant can
legitimately be said to be third party information, justifying application of section
11(1). The fact that the appellant is the husband of Smt. Monica Sharma does not
alter this legal position as the husband and wife are two separate legal entities in
law. I, therefore, hold that CPIO was right in invoking Sec.11(1) of the RTI Act.
4. Now the question arises whether the requested information should be
disclosed to the appellant. I would answer this question in the negative as the third
party had not agreed to the impugned disclosure. Even otherwise, I find it rather
strange that the appellant, being the husband, is seeking information regarding the
gas agency of his wife, particularly when his father failed in his endeavours in this
regard, as held by this Commission in order dated 26.12.12
(F.No.CIC/LS/A/2012/002287). Looked at from any angle, the appeal must fail.
Dismissed.
Order pronounced today dated 16th August 2013.Sd/
(M.L.Sharma)
Information Commissioner
No comments:
Post a Comment